(02-02-2013 09:29 AM)smidgen Wrote: And being an atheist means you you believe in man made global warming?

No, but it means one is less likely to be swayed by the rhetoric from the right.

Quote:This planet has been through so many climate changes without our help.

But the data show that human activity has contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases.

Quote:Between Ice Ages and warmings and everything in between there is nothing we can do to
change what the earth has in store for us next. It's like saying their are things we
can do stop hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. It's like shit, it happens.

We are already changing what the earth has in store for us by pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmospohere every second.

Quote:And why shouldn't a business make money off of oil. You work hard to start and build a business,
of course you want to make money, that's what makes it a successful business.
It does not matter whether you are selling oil or hotdogs on a street corner.
I guess that makes me a good old fashion American, freedom loving, capitalists.

Business is not something holy to be protected. Business is just people doing stuff. They have no right to harm others; we have laws to prevent despoiling the environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(02-02-2013 09:00 AM)TrulyX Wrote: Well, it's global warming caused by people, a little bit more than it is the earth isn't getting warmer, at least now.

I've read this 10 times and it still doesn't make sense to me

(02-02-2013 09:29 AM)smidgen Wrote: And being an atheist means you you believe in man made global warming?
This planet has been through so many climate changes without our help.
Between Ice Ages and warmings and everything in between there is nothing we can do to
change what the earth has in store for us next.

I am not sure if fossil fuels are causing global warming or not, I do not have enough research to say either way. However one day we will run out, and it's best we prepare by setting up green energy sources like solar power fields.

(02-02-2013 09:29 AM)smidgen Wrote: It's like saying their are things we can do stop hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. It's like shit, it happens.

I don't see anything limiting us from preventing hurricanes or tornadoes in the future as we continue to advance, I have doubt that we will be able to do the same with earthquakes though.

(02-02-2013 09:29 AM)smidgen Wrote: And why shouldn't a business make money off of oil. You work hard to start and build a business,
of course you want to make money, that's what makes it a successful business.
It does not matter whether you are selling oil or hotdogs on a street corner.
I guess that makes me a good old fashion American, freedom loving, capitalists.

Why shouldn't a buisness make money off of oil? Well if it is having an impact on global temperature then there's your reason. I think money is rather useless if we make our planet uninhabitable.

I believe the world was in worse shape when ppl cut down almost every tree in an entire country. Or when they threw there waste out the window of their homes. And the rivers were used for everything and anything. Including throwing your trash and waste in. Can you even imagine was it was like back then and the smell... OH and how about the rampent diseases that were coused by this lifestyle. Today it's all about keeping everything clean and how many tree's we can replant and the list goes on and on. The air is cleaner now that it was during the early years of the industrial revelation. The rivers are cleaner now. You have to look at the big picture. I love nature. I'm a hiker and I do volunteer time to clean up the forests. And I get pissed when I see beer cans on the trail. But the way this green movement is being handled is nothing but one big pile of bull shit. And so much of it is just a pile of lies. We will evolve and so will the way we get our energy but the way it's being done now just makes me sick and that man in the big white house has done nothing but destroy energy jobs in this country. He has done nothing good for this country period.

"However one day we will run out, and it's best we prepare by setting up green energy sources like solar power fields."

We will never run out of oil deposits. It will simply become more and more expensive to harvest the oil that's left. If the marketplace is left to function properly, research into alternative energy sources will rise in concert with the rising cost of harvesting crude oil. The result will be a viable replacement for oil. If nation states continue to subsidize both oil and alternative energy, we'll end up with oil that's too expensive to harvest and alternative energy sources that are too expensive to use, because everything the state subsidizes and/or heavily regulates goes up in cost, not down.
"They have no right to harm others; we have laws to prevent despoiling the environment."

How is that working out for us? Those who make the laws are the largest polluters of the environment by a long shot. Moreover, private polluters only have to pay a pittance of a fine to the state when they're caught polluting, leaving those they actually harm still harmed and with no just or affordable means by which to gain restitution.

"However one day we will run out, and it's best we prepare by setting up green energy sources like solar power fields."

We
will never run out of oil deposits. It will simply become more and more
expensive to harvest the oil that's left. If the marketplace is left to
function properly, research into alternative energy sources will rise
in concert with the rising cost of harvesting crude oil. The result will
be a viable replacement for oil. If nation states continue to subsidize
both oil and alternative energy, we'll end up with oil that's too
expensive to harvest and alternative energy sources that are too
expensive to use, because everything the state subsidizes and/or heavily
regulates goes up in cost, not down.
"They have no right to harm others; we have laws to prevent despoiling the environment."

How
is that working out for us? Those who make the laws are the largest
polluters of the environment by a long shot. Moreover, private polluters
only have to pay a pittance of a fine to the state when they're caught
polluting, leaving those they actually harm still harmed and with no
just or affordable means by which to gain restitution. So no, we don't
have laws to prevent anything. The state isn't interested in preventing harm, it's interested in profiting from it.

(02-02-2013 01:09 PM)smidgen Wrote: I believe the world was in worse shape when ppl cut down almost every tree in an entire country.

They still do... Deforestation is a huge problem all around the world; the Amazon in South America to name an example.

Quote:Or when they threw there waste out the window of their homes.

People still do... And there are many more of them to do it.

Quote:And the
rivers were used for everything and anything. Including throwing your
trash and waste in.

They still are... From China to the US, from the Hudson to the Yellow River.

Quote:Can you even imagine was it was like back then and
the smell... OH and how about the rampent diseases that were coused by
this lifestyle.

Dude... Malaria, AIDS, Tuberculosis.

Quote:Today it's all about keeping everything clean and how
many tree's we can replant and the list goes on and on. The air is
cleaner now that it was during the early years of the industrial
revelation. The rivers are cleaner now. You have to look at the big
picture.

The trends which in some cases have been diminished in the West carry on in the rest of the world. Increasingly so due to the growth in population and industry... And the development is going to have global effects. Ya know, "You have to look at the big picture".

We might evolve out of this, at some point, but things like increasing population, financial crises, idiots and time are working against us.

Being environmentally conscious encourages regulations. The Republican Party is choking with delight on the cocks of mega-corporations whose current products, investments, and practices have contributed to the degradation of the environment and atmosphere, and increasing regulations are anathema to their model. Since these politicians and lobbyists also happen to consist mostly of bat-shit insane evangelicals, bat-shit insane evangelicals all across America treat them as demagogues. The positions taken by these talking-heads are rather uniformly adopted by their followers.

Voilá, evangelical Christians across the US regard global warming as a hoax.

(02-02-2013 02:14 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: Here's one that I don't understand. Why are fundamentalist Christians so ardently opposed to Global Warming?

I understand why they cannot accept evolution; to do so means they are acknowledging the creation story in Genesis is false and new species of animals can arise without God's input, but Global Warming? Nowhere in the Bible is this subject mentioned yet they overwhelmingly oppose it. It would make more sense for Christians to be environmentally conscious; we were placed on Earth by God to be stewards and caretakers of all the living things on it. Polluting the planet therefore would make you a poor steward.

Maybe there's something here I don't get.

Even more so because you can even easily accept that there is global warming without even blaming it on man, the earth has gone through many temperature change. The temperature changes have been recorded....we have the technology. How much of it is to blamed on man? Probably a fair amount, but for the purposes of your question it doesn't matter.

The explanation for Christians being anti global warming is pretty straightforward, and it all comes down to creation theology. Creationists are vested in discrediting science as a legitimate means for discovery of the truth. I think global warming is an easier target than evolution for these kinds of people to use in their attempt to discredit science.

First of all, Al Gore. Oh...you wanted me to expound upon the point more ? Al Gore is a global warming whore who does the field a disservice with his exaggerations. There are others like him who are 'movement global warming' types who make ridiculous, unfounded predictions about catastrophes they project global warming will cause.

Second, the science backing the anthropomorphic theory of global warming is strong, however global warming theory has huge unanswered questions relating to how much warming will occur and what the feedbacks are that might enhance or limit the extent of warming. The uncertainty in these areas in no way means there is any reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions by humans causes global warming, but anti global warming folks have been successful in using these uncertainties to cast doubt on the whole theory.

Third, creationists think challenging global warming is worth the fight since it allows them to claim that even science that isn't in conflict with the bible is wrong. They can pretend they are disinterested in the debate from a theological perspective. But they are engaging in a scorched earth attack on the legitimacy of all science because of conflicts in some areas between science and the bible.

(02-02-2013 09:44 PM)BryanS Wrote: Second, the science backing the anthropomorphic theory of global warming is strong, however global warming theory has huge unanswered questions relating to how much warming will occur and what the feedbacks are that might enhance or limit the extent of warming. The uncertainty in these areas in no way means there is any reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions by humans causes global warming, but anti global warming folks have been successful in using these uncertainties to cast doubt on the whole theory.

Actually, the the various Hypothesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have proven quite weak thus far: they have shown no reasonable predictive ability. Thus, these Global Warming Hypothesis are very far from being scientific theories and, as a result, not what I'd like to see the public policy, regulation and law constructed about. While I have no doubt that human C02 emissions contribute to Global Warming, the magnitude of this warming is open to debate - and so is what, if anything, we should do about these emissions. Until then, I say we should just wait and let the data accrue and the science develop: then we'll better know what to do.

(02-02-2013 09:44 PM)BryanS Wrote: Second, the science backing the anthropomorphic theory of global warming is strong, however global warming theory has huge unanswered questions relating to how much warming will occur and what the feedbacks are that might enhance or limit the extent of warming. The uncertainty in these areas in no way means there is any reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions by humans causes global warming, but anti global warming folks have been successful in using these uncertainties to cast doubt on the whole theory.

Actually, the the various Hypothesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have proven quite weak thus far: they have shown no reasonable predictive ability. Thus, these Global Warming Hypothesis are very far from being scientific theories and, as a result, not what I'd like to see the public policy, regulation and law constructed about. While I have no doubt that human C02 emissions contribute to Global Warming, the magnitude of this warming is open to debate - and so is what, if anything, we should do about these emissions. Until then, I say we should just wait and let the data accrue and the science develop: then we'll better know what to do.

And fill sand-bags in the meantime.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.